I don't know if I'll use Chrome as my primary browser on my Mac, but I know a couple things.
1) I'll at least wait until the product exists before I make a judgment like "Because it [Safari] is better."
2) I don't understand how you can make statements like "If Chrome is released for the Mac, you can bet it will be a pretty plain-Jane port." Everything Google is saying points to a browser is not a port of a Windows product, but a real Mac OS X version. Like for instance this statement on the Google Mac Blog:
One overriding goal we have had from the start has been to build the best browser we can. When it comes to Mac and Linux versions, this means that our goal is not to just "port" a Windows application to these other platforms--rather, our goal is to deliver Chromium's innovative, Google-style user interface without rough edges on any of them. Chromium's overall design has been multi-platform from the start, but we are also committed to getting the details right for users on each platform. For an application that most of us "live in" most of the day, rough edges in the user experience or operating system integration are like having a stone in your shoe no matter how well the rest of the product works.
Not to mention I find it really hard to question whether this product will exist when one of the founders of the company called the lack of a Mac version at launch "embarassing."
3) I use Chrome as my primary browser on Windows at work, and find that it works well for me. When it comes out for OS X, I'll give a shot. That said, on my Mac, I've tried lots of different browsers but always come back to Safari. After using Firefox for a couple of years, I found something that (so far) has gotten me to switch. We'll see what happens.
@Tanner Godarzi:
I have to agree with everyone who says that just because a product isn't for you doesn't mean it's horrible or missed the market completely. First of all, it appears the market doesn't agree with you. There's rumors that the MBA is selling out in Apple stores as fast as the stores can get them: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/03/02/macbook.air.selling.fast/
I think the niche for the Air exists. I think there are enough people who own a desktop, who want a laptop, but only want the bare essentials in a laptop. I think Apple has provided that. Minimum weight, durable construction, usable keyboard, sufficient screen, wireless connectivity, adequate battery life, and enough storage if you swap stuff with a larger desktop hard drive. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that Apple screwed up by investing space in the mini-DVI port, which screams "I'm a real laptop, and use me as a desktop as well!" Better to have maybe a mini Firewire port, a card slot, or another USB port.
Apple has done enough with the Air as a first gen product to keep it alive. In the future, I expect more HD capacity and speed, better battery life, cellular wireless, and likely some tricks we can't think of right now.
I look at the Air a lot like the Saturn Sky, or simply any two-seater, no storage roadster. The Sky is totally out of character for what most Saturn customers want. It's a second car, a toy, offering style and performance with a brand normally known for utilitarian transportation and frugality. But Saturn needs the Sky for two reasons: it brings more people into the show room, and it gives Saturn engineers a platform to test envelope pushing technologies that will trickle down to its other products.
The Air is going to operate the same way. I'm sure traffic at the retail stores is especially high, as people go see if the Air is really that thin. And while they're there, they'll look at a MacBook, or a MacBook Pro. Maybe they'll realize that the current slate of Apple laptops are actually decent values, despite the perception that they're especially expensive. And now, Apple engineers and suppliers have a reason to make super-thin 160 GB hard drives, or cheaper SSDs, or really small cellular antennas. It's almost an added bonus that there are enough people with the funds and the want/need for an Air to make a business case for it.
Personally, I think the analogy would be to fuel economy, i.e. the race now to see which car manufacturer can make the nicest, most powerful car that also gets 30 miles to the gallon. Power to weight ratio would be when software and OS developers being ridding their applications of bloat to improve performance.
Panther actually did have guidlines as to which applications could use the metallic look and which couldn't. ArsTechnica wrote about it. I think it was something like "anything with a Finder-style" interface, i.e. a "Library" or "Source" column on the left side. So basically, anything that is a "Finder" for something, iTunes for music, iPhoto for pictures, has the metallic look.
Will Apple Ever Give Us What We Know We Want?
5 Reasons Why Safari Rocks Chrome
The MacBook Air Is a Horrible, Horrible Product
When Hot Is Not
What I'd Like to See in Tiger: Part 3, A Consistent User Interface